9.  On 28 May 1992 the applicant divorced. The court declared that both spouses should retain full and unrestricted parental rights with respect to their minor daughter M., born on 3 May 1984, but it ordered that she should live with her mother.
10.  Since the applicant could not reach an agreement with his former wife as to the exercise of custody, on 24 November 1992 he requested the Toruń District Court to determine the access arrangements. On 11 May 1993 the court ordered that M. should visit the applicant twice a month for weekends. They were also to spend one month together during the summer holidays and one week during the winter holidays.
11.  In the meantime, between June 1992 and 23 October 1993, the applicant made a number of unsuccessful attempts to see his child. The applicant therefore instituted enforcement proceedings on 8 June 1993, following the decision of 11 May 1993. On 18 October 1993 the Toruń District Court ordered the mother to give the applicant access to M. on pain of a fine. On 7 January 1994 the court imposed on the mother a fine for non‑compliance with its order in the amount of 100,000 (old) złotys. [1]
12.  On 8 February 1994 the Toruń District Court, upon the applicant's request, changed the access arrangements. The court ruled that the applicant should be allowed to take M. from her place of residence on every first and every third Friday of the month, as from 6.30 p.m., and bring her back on Sunday before 7.30 p.m. The court further set out detailed rules as to holidays, with reference to exact dates.
13.  Following these detailed arrangements, the applicant made further attempts to see M., but again to no avail. According to the applicant, every time he went to fetch his daughter at the appointed hour, either no one answered the door bell or he was informed that his daughter was out, busy, sleeping or not willing to see him. The applicant complained to various authorities, including the Toruń Commission for the Protection of the Rights of the Child, and the Ombudsman, but was informed that only the courts had the power to enforce a judicial decision in respect of access to a child.
14.  On 6 May 1994 the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the decision of 8 February 1994. Hearings were held in these proceedings on 15 and 30 June, 11 July and 18 August 1994. At the hearing of 18 August the court gave an order by which M.'s mother was obliged, on pain of a fine, to grant the applicant access to the child. On 15 September 1994 she appealed, arguing that she had never impeded the applicant's access to his daughter.
15.  On 28 October 1994 her appeal was dismissed. On 17 November 1994 the applicant called on her to comply with the court's decision.
16.  On 5 December 1994 the applicant requested the court to impose a fine on his ex-wife for non-compliance with the access decision.
17.  On 18 January 1995 a hearing was held at which the applicant maintained his motion of 5 December 1994. The child's mother requested the court to adjourn the decision pending the termination of the proceedings concerning access. On 19 January 1995 the court imposed on her a fine of PLN 10 and ordered her to give the applicant access to his daughter within one week, on pain of a further fine. On 8 March 1995 the applicant requested the court to impose another fine on his former wife.
18.  On 15 May 1995 a hearing was held, which the mother failed to attend. Her lawyer asked the court to stay the proceedings, submitting that their result hinged on the outcome of the pending access proceedings, which the parties had meanwhile instituted on 29 October 1994 (paragraph 33 below). The court adjourned the hearing. At the next hearing held on 29 May 1995, the child's mother declared that the child had refused to have contact with her father. She requested the court to call witnesses. The court dismissed her request, considering that this was irrelevant to the proceedings at hand and scheduled the adoption of a decision for 31 May 1995. The hearing to be held on that date was adjourned, as on 30 May 1995 the applicant had submitted a letter from M. as evidence. On 16 June 1995 a hearing was held. The court imposed on the mother a fine of an unspecified amount and ordered her to give the applicant access to his daughter in accordance with the access arrangements.
19.  On 17 July 1995 the applicant lodged a new motion with the Toruń District Court for the enforcement of the decision of 8 February 1994, requesting that the mother be called upon to comply with the decision within a week on pain of a fine and that, in case of non-compliance, a further fine be imposed on her. As the applicant failed to pay the court fee, the court refused to deal with the motion. The fee having subsequently been paid, a hearing was scheduled for 27 September 1995. It was adjourned as the child's mother failed to attend.
20.  The next hearing was held on 3 October 1995. M.'s mother declared that her daughter kept refusing to see the applicant. On 13 October 1995 the court imposed a fine of 20 new Polish zlotys on her and ordered her to comply with the access order.
21.  On 22 November 1995 the applicant again requested that enforcement proceedings be instituted.
22.  A hearing scheduled for 26 April 1996 was adjourned until 10 May 1996 at the applicant's request. In her pleadings of 9 May 1996, M.'s mother requested the court to dismiss the enforcement motion and to question four witnesses. On 10 May 1996 a hearing was held. The applicant requested the court to adjourn it so that he could comment on these pleadings. The court allowed his request.
23.  On 25 May 1996 the applicant submitted his comments. At a hearing on 29 May 1996, the court obliged the applicant's former wife to reply to his arguments within ten days. At a hearing held on 21 June 1996, she asked the court to stay the proceedings until completion of the pending proceedings concerning the new determination of the access rights.
24.  In pleadings submitted on 6 September 1996 the ex-wife requested that an expert opinion prepared in the proceedings concerning the access rights, from which it was deduced that the applicant's daughter should not be compelled to have contact with her father, be included in the case file.
25.  On 24 October 1996 a hearing was scheduled for 15 November 1996. At this hearing the child's mother renewed her request for an adjournment until the proceedings concerning the custody rights were completed.
26.  On 25 November 1996 she requested the court to question two other witnesses in respect of the child's attitude towards the applicant. A hearing scheduled for 13 December 1996 was adjourned upon the applicant's request until 8 January 1997. The hearings to be held on 8 January, 29 January and 14 February 1997 were adjourned on the ground that the proceedings concerning the access rights were still pending.
27.  At a hearing on 14 March 1997, the court decided to take evidence by questioning the parties. By a decision of 20 March 1997, the court imposed a fine in the amount of PLN 400 on the applicant's former wife and ordered her to give the applicant, within a week, access to his daughter. She appealed, arguing that she was not responsible for the lack of contacts between the applicant and his daughter. It was M. who was reluctant to see her father. Taking into consideration the fact that the girl had reached the age of 13, the contacts were no longer dependent solely on her mother's will.
28.  On 12 June 1997 the Toruń Regional Court allowed the appeal, quashed the decision of 20 March 1997 and dismissed the applicant's request, considering that, since the daughter had turned thirteen, contacts with her were no longer dependent solely on her mother's will. The evidence available to the court did not allow the conclusion that it was the applicant's former wife impeding those contacts. The provisions of Article 1050 of the Civil Procedure Code, concerning the enforcement of non-pecuniary obligations, did not oblige a mother to take steps to change her child's attitude to the father.
29.  On 16 January 1998 the applicant requested the Toruń District Court to institute a further set of enforcement proceedings. On 18 March 1998 the court held a hearing. M.'s mother failed to comply with the summons and a fine was imposed on her for her unjustified absence.
30.  At a hearing held on 15 April 1998 the court questioned the parties. M.'s mother said that she had complied with the access decision at the beginning, but later M. had started to refuse to see the applicant. The court admitted evidence from the files of the other judicial proceedings between the parties.
31.  On 21 April 1998 the court ordered the applicant's former wife to give the applicant access to his daughter on pain of a fine of PLN 500. She appealed, arguing that the applicant's access to his daughter did not depend solely on her will, taking into account that the child was fourteen years' old.
32.  On 28 July 1998 the Toruń Regional Court allowed her appeal and dismissed the applicant's motion to have the enforcement proceedings instituted, on the same grounds as the decision of 12 June 1997 (paragraph 28 above). The court further noted that the applicant was not prevented from persuading his daughter, who had other interests than spending time with her father, to see him.
33.  On 29 October 1994 both the applicant and his former wife requested the Toruń District Court to alter the access arrangements as determined in the decision of 8 February 1994. In these proceedings the court requested a report from an expert in psychology. The expert, having met both parents, the daughter and her school teacher, delivered an initial psychological report on 9 April 1996 and a supplementary report on 16 October 1996. The expert concluded that M. had emotional ties with both parents and that it was in her best interests to continue living with her mother and to maintain regular and undisturbed contacts with the applicant.
34.  The expert found that M. was not afraid of the applicant but that she was stressed by the fact that any encounter between her mother, her mother's new partner and the applicant might give rise to a quarrel. Having regard to the applicant's former wife's hostility to the applicant's contacts with M., the expert recommended that the enforcement of the access rights be supervised by a court officer.
35.  On 20 March 1997 the Toruń District Court, having regard to the expert's conclusions, dismissed the motions for a change of the access arrangements. As a result, the decision of 8 February 1994 remained in force. Moreover, the court appointed an officer to supervise the exercise of custody rights by the mother.
36.  On 17 November 1997 the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings. However, the court informed him that his motion was inadmissible since the mother's conduct was to be supervised by a court officer appointed under that decision.
37.     In 1998 he again instituted enforcement proceedings and, on 21 April 1998, the Toruń District Court imposed on the mother a fine of PLN 500. She successfully appealed, the Toruń Regional Court allowing her appeal on 28 July 1998, again referring to M.'s age and finding that the contacts between M. and the applicant no longer depended on the mother's will.
38.  From May 1997 onwards, the applicant considered that all his requests to impose further fines on his former wife were bound to fail, either in the first instance or upon the mother's appeal, for the same reasons on which the courts relied in their earlier decisions - M. being over 13 years old. Nevertheless, finding it impossible to enforce his right of effective access to his child, the applicant unsuccessfully filed a number of further motions with the court.
39.  On 20 March 1997 the court appointed an officer to supervise the exercise of custody rights by the mother (paragraph 35 above). Both the applicant and M.'s mother appealed, to no avail.
40.  On 10 November and 1 December 1997 the supervision officer submitted reports to the court.
41.  On 3 January 1998 the officer accompanied the applicant to M.'s apartment. She refused to go for a walk with him. The officer talked with her for 25 minutes, but the girl refused to go out.
42.  On 22 January, 9 March, 9 May and 9 August 1998, the supervision officer submitted reports to the court. In an undated report submitted on 22 January 1998, it was stated that M. lived with her mother, her husband and her half-sister, had her own room and good living conditions. It was further stated that the applicant kept coming to see M. at times determined in the access order, but that the contacts were limited to brief conversations through the entry-phone. When asked why she did not want to see her father, M. had been evasive. Her mother had said that she had nothing against M.'s contacts with her father, but that she would not force her to see him.
43.  In a report of 23 January 1998, the supervision officer reported that, during the visit to be held on the first Saturday of that month, M. refused to see her father when he came to see her. She failed to explain why. Her mother reiterated that she would not force the child to see the applicant. The officer further remarked that the attitude of the mother was inflexible.
44.  In a report dated 9 May 1998, the supervision officer stated that M.'s mother and her husband had declared that they had not been preventing M. from seeing her father, but that they would not oblige her to do so, given that she herself was reluctant.
45.  On 8 September 1998 the officer held a meeting in which the applicant, his daughter and her mother participated. The girl said that she wished to maintain contact with the applicant, but did not want to visit him at his home. The supervision officer reported to the court that the applicant had reacted violently to this, and that the child seemed to be afraid of him.
46.  In a report of 10 November 1998 it was stated that the applicant was coming to see M. twice a month, but that the child did not want to see him. Her mother did not oppose her seeing her father. It was further remarked that M. had become mature enough to see or visit her father alone, had she wished to do so.
47.  On 1 December 1998 another supervision officer, Ms M.S., was appointed. On 15 December 1998 she submitted her first report to the court on the conditions of the child's upbringing. On 5 March 1999 she accompanied the applicant to the block of flats where his daughter lived. Initially the child refused to come down to see the applicant, but eventually she agreed and they talked for twenty minutes. On 15 March and 15 June 1999 the officer submitted further reports to the court.
48.  On 15 October 1999 a new supervision officer, Mr J.S., submitted his report to the court. Further reports were submitted on 30 January, 30 April, 30 July and 30 October 2000.
49.  On 5 December 2000 Ms R.S., the first supervision officer, was re‑appointed to the applicant's case. On 2 February 2001 she went to M.'s apartment, but there was nobody at home. On 31 March 2001 she again visited the family. M. was not at home at that time. Her mother and her stepfather were verbally aggressive towards the officer, refused to co‑operate and ordered her to leave the flat. Subsequently, the officer summoned M.'s mother for a meeting on 20 April 2001 and criticised her conduct during that incident. On 31 June 2001 the officer submitted a further report on the child. On 20 July, 19 August and 6 September 2001, she visited M. and submitted a report on 31 September 2001.
50.  In a report to the court, dated 31 June 2001, it was stated that the supervision officer had established that the applicant was coming to see M. regularly twice a month. The form of the contacts had not changed, i.e. they talked on the staircase.
51.  On 31 December 2001 the court officer submitted a further report, in which she stated that she had suggested that the applicant and M. go out together, but that he was reluctant, considering that this would be humiliating for him.
52.  A further statement as to the child's unwillingness to see the applicant was made in a report of 21 March 2002.
53.  On 14 May 2002 the Toruń District Court discontinued the enforcement proceedings in view of the fact that the applicant's daughter had reached majority.
54.  On 8 June 1993 the applicant informed the Toruń District Court that between 1 November 1992 and 7 June 1993 he had spent eleven days with his daughter and that he had also recently started meeting her during the school breaks. On 18 October 1993 the applicant admitted before the court that he had been meeting his daughter twice a week at school. During Christmas 1993 M. stayed with the applicant for two hours.
55.  In January 1994 the applicant met M. twice during the weekends. She also visited the applicant in his apartment on 18 February 1994 and on the first weekend of March. On 18 March 1994 the applicant could not see M. because she was ill. They spent the second day of Easter together. On 3 and 18 May 1994 M. was ill and could not see the applicant. She informed the applicant thereof by a letter of 18 May. The applicant visited her in her apartment on the first weekend of June. Before the applicant's visits planned for 2 and 16 August 1994, M.'s mother informed the applicant that the girl did not wish to see him. Later on, in September, M. informed the applicant that she would not visit him on the first Friday in September. Likewise, on 7 and 21 October 1994 she refused to go with him to his apartment.
56.  During Christmas 1995 M. spent two hours with the applicant.
57.  On 19 April and 3 May 1996 M. refused to speak to the applicant, who was waiting for her at the entrance to her block of flats. Later on, the applicant met M. on 4, 18 and 20 September. On 6 and 22 November 1996 M. opened the door when the applicant came to see her, but refused to go out with him.
58.  Apparently throughout this time the applicant was coming to the applicant's school to see her and talk to her either during the breaks or in front of the school, after she finished her lessons. During a court hearing held on 14 March 1997, the applicant declared that he had stopped doing so, as this was making M. nervous.
59.  When the applicant came to see M. on 3 January 1997, she was not at home. On 17 January, 21 February and 7 March 1997 M. did not want to talk to the applicant as she was doing something else at that time. On 21 March, 18 July, 13 and 17 October 1997 the applicant and M. met and talked briefly, for several minutes, in front of the door to the apartment where M. lived. On these occasions M. was unwilling to have longer conversations with the applicant, saying that she was busy. On 18 April, 16 May, 18 July, 5 September and 5 December 1997, M. also refused to see the applicant, referring to other things she preferred or was obliged to do. On 1 August 1997 M. refused to spend holidays with the applicant. On 7 November 1997 M. and the applicant had a conversation for half an hour, at the entrance to M.'s block of flats. On 21 November 1997 when the applicant came to see her, she was not at home. On 19 December 1997 M. could not leave the apartment to talk to the applicant on the staircase, as she was taking care of her younger sister.
60.  On 2 January 1998 M. refused to see the applicant when he came as she was seeing a friend. On 3 January 1998, she also refused to see him as she was busy doing something else. On 16 January 1998 the applicant and M. talked briefly on the staircase of her block of flats. She refused to see him the following weekend. On 6 February 1998 they met again in the yard of the block and talked briefly. On 20 February 1998 M. refused to leave the apartment to see the applicant, because she was busy. On 6 and 20 March and 3 April 1998, she was not at home when he came to see her. At a hearing held before the court on 15 April 1998, the applicant acknowledged that he had met M. three times at school during that year. On 14 May 1998 the applicant gave M. the maintenance payment due for this month. On 15 May they talked for fifteen minutes. On 5 June 1998 when the applicant came to see M. she was not at home. On 19 June 1998 M., the applicant and the court officer talked for several minutes at the entrance to M.'s block of flats. On 8 September 1998 the applicant talked to M. at a meeting organised by the supervisory officer.
61.  On 5 March 1999 the applicant and the supervision officer met M. at the entrance to the block of flats. M. left them after few minutes. From March to June 1999 the applicant met M. once. On 17 September 1999 the applicant and M. talked for twenty minutes.
62.  On the first Friday of January 2000, the applicant and M. met for several minutes. On 24 July 2000 the applicant met M. walking down the street and they talked for fifteen minutes.
63.  On 31 September 2001 M. told the supervision officer that she was normally seeing the applicant twice a month.
64.  On 17 January, 1 February, and 1 and 15 March 2002, the applicant and M. talked on the staircase, in front of her apartment.